Arya's Purpose?

[the silent speaker]

Though I have no idea where the assertion came from, because I don't in fact think that Jaime had any hand in the Red Wedding. The bearer is not identified or explained.

It was pretty obviously Roose Bolton who knifed Robb.

And yes, I maintain that only lords have pit and gallows for deserters of Night's Watch. The trials in Westeros are not exactly models of fairness, but they do have something that serves for process if you squint (and don't worry too hard about making sure you have correct results). Even for Night's Watchmen; they are entitled to what passes for a trial on the question of whether they deserted or not. Gared got one in AGOT. He was executed by a lord who passed sentence and with his own hand swung the blade, not stabbed in the back while he slept.

[Errant Bard]

I'm pretty sure that's how that went right? Scratch Sam from the novels!

You're mistaking sociopathy for psychopathy here. That Arya is indifferent to death doesn't mean she cannot acts to further her own agenda, namely, after that incident:

“Are you truly in the Night’s Watch? I never saw a black brother like you before.†The girl gestured at the barrow. “You can have the last clams if you want. It’s dark, no one will buy them now. Are you sailing to the Wall?â€

You think he shows all the sentivities and yet the fierce determination and strength, just because he wants to create a sociopathic killer? Think again!

Actually, I hope that's what he wants to do.

I am simplifying, but we got a lot, and I mean a lot, of pseudo bad guys who turn good in fantasy, but good guys who turns bad, how many do we have? Close to zero. Arya would fit the role, she's understandable, she's liked, she had good intentions, and she has been consistently developed to gradually let go of her values and even of her personality. She has absolutely everything to become a good "fallen" character.

And why not? If we have that much morality changes in asoiaf, why should GRRM always show his characters going from bad to good or not changing? Obviously the bad ones had to become bad at one point or another. Why not allow Arya an episode of genuine darkness, if she comes through it'll be that much beautiful, and if she doesn't she would still be the most memorable character of the books. I'm thinking of Erikson's Felisin here, I don't think she was that well written, but the role is so rare that some readers remember her as the best female character in fantasy (sic)... It's THAT good to have a character that isn't an archetypical tomboy princess that will always be moral thanks to the power of love.

Doesn't preclude a criminal or a psycho to change or be liked for what he is anyway, look at Jaime and Sandor. (Reminder, Jaime threw a child out of a window, Sandor cut a boy in half and laughed about it, and no that wasn't self defense.)

[Insert Edit]

You're mistaking sociopathy for psychopathy here. That Arya is indifferent to death doesn't mean she cannot acts to further her own agenda, namely, after that incident:

“Are you truly in the Night’s Watch? I never saw a black brother like you before.†The girl gestured at the barrow. “You can have the last clams if you want. It’s dark, no one will buy them now. Are you sailing to the Wall?â€

<snip>

Doesn't preclude a criminal or a psycho to change or be liked for what he is anyway, look at Jaime and Sandor. (Reminder, Jaime threw a child out of a window, Sandor cut a boy in half and laughed about it, and no that wasn't self defense.)

Well the beauty of our disagreement is (assuming GRRM finishes them) we'll find out eventually. I think you're wrong. She's a disturbed child (who wouldn't be?) but will be redeemed in some way (although not as many would like).

[SkyPirate]

Errand Bard, that's very well put and I totally agree. If that is the way Arya is going to go, I would love her even more.

Well the beauty of our disagreement is (assuming GRRM finishes them) we'll find out eventually.

Indeed

[a_homeless_harpy]

sn't it clear that GRRM wants Arya to become a remorseless killer? What other purpose could he have in mind? What role should she play if not a super-ninja-Faceless Man-trained-warg-Level 20 thief. He's writing a fantasy novel, after all.

I am not so sure that the author wants her to be a killer, let alone remorseless, Ent Hereux. For me Arya represents a tormented war orphan who strives to find a new place in the mad world and I find her portrayal rather in accordance with the reality. That's why Arya must have committed some attrocities, to embody all inocent survivals of horrible times. Of course I might be wrong and Arya might become an ultimate killing machine.

Dang, homeless, I know you're trying to defend Arya, but that's just wrong! The incredible thing is that she DID retain empathy, sense of justice, and other nice and noble notions. See my post above for a few examples, and if you think you'll be able to come up with more. Arya consistently acts charitably, and never considers herself except insofar as staying alive.

Well, some of her reactions don't prove it but deep down she did retain some sensibility, I agree. More bothersome is the fact that she tends to forget it more and more the same way she forgot why you shouldn't steal immediately when she found herself on the streets and in dire need of food. Her age is the most important factor here. In her age I also find the biggest obstacle when you want to compare her with Tyrion, Jaime, Sandor etc. They are adults and they are responsible. Arya might be a murderer but she still is a child, lost and afraid. Even children-soldiers from Africa were forgiven their brutality and killing (although they had to pay a very high prize nevertheless).

I am simplifying, but we got a lot, and I mean a lot, of pseudo bad guys who turn good in fantasy, but good guys who turns bad, how many do we have? Close to zero. Arya would fit the role, she's understandable, she's liked, she had good intentions, and she has been consistently developed to gradually let go of her values and even of her personality. She has absolutely everything to become a good "fallen" character.

To tell you the truth I would rather see her sister, Sansa, in that role, EB.

[A wilding]

I do not concede that Stoneheart is justified, however. The conceded point is minor; I argue that she had ample information to conclude that Brienne was doing her very best to keep the very vow that she had made to Catelyn, and did not deserve to die. In addition to her previous knowledge of Brienne's honor, she should have known that Brienne had just risked her life to save a bunch of orphans. So on evidence that she had before her, Catelyn was incorrect. IMHO she was just trying to coerce Brienne into murdering Jaime ... which is a wrong thing to do, and a wrong goal (I think - we see Jaime's thought, after all).

But equally important is the fact that we, as readers, are quite certain that none of the three deserves to die. We, as readers, have the sort of knowledge generally limited to a god. We can see that Stoneheart's nod to legal form does nothing to make her decision correct in fact. And it is this error of an execution that "follows the rules," contrasted with the executions by Arya that we, as godly readers, know to be justified in fact, but which nonetheless fail to follow the rules in form -- it is this contrast that IMHO illustrates a principle important to GRRM: justice isn't in the form, but in the fact. Distrust authority, look to your own heart for the truth, etc. Just because authority says somebody deserves to die doesn't mean it is so, and just because there's no authority to say somebody should die, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

A generous view of Brienne's behaviour might be that she had merely been duped by a scoundrel and was actually misguidedly trying to do more or less what Catelyn had originally ordered of her, despite the extremely suspicious circumstances. And Catelyn does indeed take a reasonably generous view. All Brienne has to do is to obey an order and she will be considered not guilty. An order that is clearly justified, as it is to kill someone who Catelyn has overwhelming evidence is an utterly faithless and treacherous scoundrel who thoroughly deserves to die (and someone that, even from my godlike viewpoint, I also consider deserves to die). Ultimately Catelyn orders Brienne's execution because she refused to obey this order. I can't consider all this merely a "nod to legal form", or even an incorrect decision from her PoV.

The bottom line is that Westeros is a primitive society and there is a war on. Catelyn's justice is at least as fair as any other justice we have seen and more fair than most. It just so happens that in this case most readers' sympathies are mostly with Brienne, but very likely if we knew the backstories of some of the other people we see executed we might decide that some of them didn't deserve death either (the broken men hung by Jaime spring to mind here).

In Westeros some executions are going to be miscarriages of justice, but they still have to execute people found guilty - the only alternative would be complete lawlessness. IMO a major point GRRM is making here is that life in a primitive society is fundamentally brutish, nasty and short.

Incidentally, on the thread topic, I consider Arya's killing of Daeron to be justified also. I am definitely an Arya fan, and my only concern is similar to HA's, that she resorts to killing a little too readily.

[allanonk4]

I must admit, I dislike Arya's chapters after she escapes king's landing. (Excluding The Hound chapters...)

It becomes very apparent to me that since she's a POV character, she's going to end up playing a major role in the end. I think she's going to end up assassianating someone important (Cersei, Littlefinger?)

What do you think?

I think the pleasure of assassinating Littlefinger should go to Sansa. He's been a major cause of the downfall of the entire Stark family and he did it all for her...

[Insert Edit]

Arya might be a murderer but she still is a child, lost and afraid. Even children-soldiers from Africa were forgiven their brutality and killing (although they had to pay a very high prize nevertheless).

This illustrates pretty well what I've been trying to get at. If you've seen the movie 'Blood Diamond,' there's the character of Solomon Vandy. His son is abducted at a young age, and becomes a soldier/gang member. He's therefore a product of his environment. His nature as a human being changes drastically. At the end of the movie, we as the audience don't know what the future holds for this boy. He has been a killer (a psychopath - a sociopath?) and it is SUGGESTED that there may be redemption for him. (or at least hope.)

It's based on a true story, so I'd be fascinated to find out what happened to Vandy as he got older. What happens to MANY of these children who are indoctrinated and made into killers? Is there redemption for them? Or are they forever sociopaths/psychopaths/killers because of their early experiences?

Anyone have any input on that?

[AvengingAryaFan]

Sociopath Arya:

As Bravo #1 insults Sam the Slayer to his pudgy face, Arya watches from the shadows. A night's watch member about to be impaled on a sword! Cool! Bloody Westerosi anyway. Didn't help her when she needed it! It's going to be so much fun to see this fat-ass in black get his comeuppance. <shrinks into shadow with a grin on her face - stifling a giggle>

I'm pretty sure that's how that went right? Scratch Sam from the novels!

Insert Edit, thanks for this further example (those who don't recognize IE's irony should read the section, which begins about p. 384 of AFFC Bantam hardcover). Far from being a sociopath, lacking empathy, etc., Arya is endangering herself yet again to help a victim she doesn't even know.

Your theory, in the more recent post, that Arya is like an African child soldier is reasonable, in a way, except that according to Blood Diamond and other reports, those child soldiers kill innocent, undeserving people. Blood Diamond showed them being actively trained to do that -- but as has been pointed out, having a reason to be a sociopath doesn't mean you aren't one. The description, however, doesn't fit Arya.

A lot of posters "get it," but I think a lot of others need to read more carefully. GRRM has set Arya in an African civil war sort of circumstance, trained her in weapons, given her experience in killing so that from her viewpoint it's just a useful option (and ultimately unavoidable - valar morghulis), rather than a taboo. BUT with all of that, he has painstakingly provided example after example of Arya acting considerately, empathetically, humanely to the innocent around her. Nobody has yet given an example of her killing without justification. Why do you bother to read GRRM's words, if you care so little for the meaning that he clearly is trying to convey with them? If he wanted her to kill without justification, he has only to write a few paragraphs! Now why do you suppose he hasn't done that?

Arya isn't a sociopath who might be redeemed. She's a kind and incredibly resourceful child who is passionately committed to justice, not a sociopath at all. But you lot can't seem to see past the fact that she breaks the rules, and kills without remorse when it's warranted. What, did you all grow up in the button-down corporate 80s? Play by the rules and trust authority? Well, Jon might succeed that way, but Arya doesn't have his options. Arya is a GRRM heroine who deals with reality, rather than with the illusions and ideals of the "stupid" songs.

[Errant Bard]

To tell you the truth I would rather see her sister, Sansa, in that role, EB.

But Sansa starts out as a villain, or at least as someone as unsympathetic as possible, when Arya starts as a prototypical good guy, so to achieve the same effect, Sansa would have to make readers like her first, and frankly I'm not sure this is possible. Sure, some readers like the girl, but they are a minority, and as far as I can tell, it is more of a liking for the writing of character than all out love for the character itself like in the case of Arya.

This being said, I envision Sansa ending the serie playing the game of thrones against Dany, for power, for Winterfell, not being particularly immoral, maybe even winning back Winterfell. Maybe like the Queen of thorns, take that as you wish.

It's based on a true story, so I'd be fascinated to find out what happened to Vandy as he got older. What happens to MANY of these children who are indoctrinated and made into killers? Is there redemption for them? Or are they forever sociopaths/psychopaths/killers because of their early experiences?

Anyone have any input on that?

What do you think? They shake off their past life and traumas when they reach the government-approved age for adulthood or something?

According to all the sites I've seen, they can be rehabilitated, but they don't do it on their own, and if there isn't a costly community effort to reintegrate them, they take their weapons again. Their trauma and mental problems are never really erased.

Try this link: http://www.unicef.org/eapro/AdultWarsChildSoldiers.pdf or this one: http://humanrightswatch.org/campaigns/crp/facts.htm

[AvengingAryaFan]

But Sansa starts out as a villain, or at least as someone as unsympathetic as possible, when Arya starts as a prototypical good guy, ...

Are you reading the same books I'm reading? You know, A Song of Ice and Fire by GRRM?

Sansa starts out as a villain, or unsympathetic? She starts out as a perfect princess, and Arya is her troublesome little sister who just can't conform to the rules! This uncomfortable, uncooperative child is a prototypical good guy???

Well, at least you're pretty sensible when it comes to real child soldiers.

[Lady Blackfish]

Cards on the table, we all know our tropes. The rebellious tomboy sister is always the sympathetic character, unless you've taken a sabbatical from pop culture for at least the last 50 years.

This does not make Arya an unsympathetic character or poorly written character (she is quite the opposite IMO). This does render an argument that rests on the notion that the author predisposed the reader to initially prefer Sansa over Arya rather suspect, IMO.

[AvengingAryaFan]

It was pretty obviously Roose Bolton who knifed Robb.

...

This is a very interesting idea, silent speaker - Roose Bolton might have a reason to suggest that Jaime was involved. However, it isn't obvious to me that it was Roose Bolton who finished Robb (which was done with a sword, not a knife). I must be missing something, so would you be so kind as to explain the facts that led to your obvious conclusion?

[siyrean]

Yes, let's all avoid riling up the bully, because he might hurt somebody and then it would be OUR fault, right?

Arya embarrasses Joffrey. Are you suggesting that Arya caused Joffrey to order Mycah to be killed? Or that Joffrey had no choice but to have Mycah killed under the circumstances? With a sense of justice like that, I can understand your position better, that's for sure. Mycah being killed was almost entirely Joffrey's fault, with an assist by Sandor who was all too willing to comply. To blame it on Arya is seriously twisted. God forbid you should ever be on a jury. You'd probably argue that a rape was the victim's fault.

I suppose you think that the investors who provided the money were at fault in the Enron meltdown because they gave the conspirators the opportunity to steal?

I'll tell you one thing, I REALLY doubt that GRRM believes that passively submitting to authority defines "right." I'm really sorry for this country that you are probably not alone in your position.

Actions have consequences, indeed. The passive inaction you're suggesting has consequences, too -- it permits people to start wars, torture people, illegally wiretap phones, destroy people's careers with impunity, etc., etc. It permitted Hitler to take over Germany. " "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

if i walk down a dark alley at 2 am wearing a tiny little skirt is it my fault if i'm raped? No, but it's certainly a DAMN stupid thing to do. that's my point.

if under law Arya's justified in killing Dareon, then Joff is also justified in killing Mycha.

[Insert Edit]

What do you think? They shake off their past life and traumas when they reach the government-approved age for adulthood or something?

According to all the sites I've seen, they can be rehabilitated, but they don't do it on their own, and if there isn't a costly community effort to reintegrate them, they take their weapons again. Their trauma and mental problems are never really erased.

Try this link: http://www.unicef.org/eapro/AdultWarsChildSoldiers.pdf or this one: http://humanrightswatch.org/campaigns/crp/facts.htm

<sigh> just can't keep that tone out eh Dom? I suppose I do it too at times.

No actually I do NOT think that they just magically get over it. I've actually worked with kids before, including some pretty screwed up ones. I have known people who were sexually abused as children after being taken away from their birth families and put in Canadian parochial schools. A good friend was abused by an acting coach, and is thirty years later fighting alcoholism and drug dependencies.

Is there hope however? Is someone from a horrific situation going to always fail?

From the website you linked: (thanks for the links) emphasis mine

Most of the young people interviewed expressed a strong desire for education. Many spoke with regret about the loss of their education when schools were destroyed or they were forced into

war. An overwhelming majority expressed determination to continue their studies.

Sounds like some positives in all that negativity.

I have learned many things here at the centre. Gardening. Construction work. And I am studying here. I now want to finish school, to have a job. I want to be a teacher. Those are things that I hope for. I realize that I can change my life. I want to lead a peaceful life.. [Philippines – joined when she was 13, now 16]

More words of hope.

When I was fighting I never thought about being educated. Now I’m enjoying it. I want to become one of the successful people in life. I want to become a doctor. [Papua New Guinea – joined when he was 11, now

22]

Of course these kids would require help and support and community involvement to recover. The Vandy son in 'Blood Diamond' wouldn't even have been offered a chance at redemption if his father had not moved heaven and earth to find him and rescue him.

Anyway, if these kids can be cold merciless killers and come out the other side with some semblance of hope and optimism - in real life, then there's hope for a fictional character to do the same.

We'll see.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Cards on the table, we all know our tropes. The rebellious tomboy sister is always the sympathetic character, unless you've taken a sabbatical from pop culture for at least the last 50 years.

This does not make Arya an unsympathetic character or poorly written character (she is quite the opposite IMO). This does render an argument that rests on the notion that the author predisposed the reader to initially prefer Sansa over Arya rather suspect, IMO.

Your first paragraph is a clear, succinct rebuttal of my suggestion that DEB was misreading. I'm chastised.

I challenged (being generous) his characterization, but simply because I thought he had it backward (and to be fair, the tomboy sister is more sympathetic precisely because everybody around her treats her as less accepted, so ... oh, never mind).

But there was no argument resting on any conclusion about that. I simply thought he was wrong, but I was mistaken.

So Dom wants a truly sympathetic character to turn evil, rather than an apparently loveable character like Sansa. I think that's too much to ask. The massive sweep of this saga means that it's a wonder George can paint his characters as finely as he does; he does character-study level detail in an action adventure. But to do all that AND contravene the tropes? It's enough that he has had truly sympathetic characters ruthlessly killed off, such as Ned and Robb.

[Lady Blackfish]

I understand why the tomboy trope succeeds for many, but that's besides our point as I think we could agree. It did seem to me you were saying, however, that GRRM's intended subversion was to switch readers from disprefering Arya to finding her a hero despite ethical and moral clouds. If it's not really an important factor, hey cool with me. But if it's been asserted I'd have to disagree with it, that's all.

I don't really post to chastise anyone, I'm sorry (and a little confused) that it came across that way, I assume we're all adults or near it and it wouldn't really enter my mind to even want to relate to anyone like that.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I understand why the tomboy trope succeeds for many, but that's besides our point as I think we could agree. It did seem to me you were saying, however, that GRRM's intended subversion was to switch readers from disprefering Arya to finding her a hero despite ethical and moral clouds. If it's not really an important factor, hey cool with me. But if it's been asserted I'd have to disagree with it, that's all.

I don't really post to chastise anyone, I'm sorry (and a little confused) that it came across that way, I assume we're all adults or near it and it wouldn't really enter my mind to even want to relate to anyone like that.

No, I think my argument is simpler, one that I frankly thought was obvious, except that I keep seeing people asserting or assuming that Arya's a sociopath. My argument is simply that Sansa and Arya represent extremes of "following rules" versus "not following rules." I'd have thought that the fierce, independent rule-breaker with the good heart was obviously more sympathetic, and better, than the rule-abiding beauty who has shown moral weaknesses. But as obvious as this seems to me, many people are saying the rule-breaker has become unsympathetic and/or sociopathic.

I suppose it would be interesting to see Arya truly become evil, but it would also be unpleasant.

[Lady Blackfish]

But as obvious as this seems to me, many people are saying the rule-breaker has become unsympathetic and/or sociopathic.

What has been said many times by people who are arguing her sociopathy (or at least lack of moral clarity) is that she is still sympathetic to them. I think you're fighting another battle here.

I suppose it would be interesting to see Arya truly become evil, but it would also be unpleasant.

Well, these books aren't here to be a walk in the park.

[Poobah]

Cards on the table, we all know our tropes.

I...really... dont. Technical terminology!

Heheh

-Poobs